El Dorado–Monserrat (EDM) PEA: $1.50B NPV, 65% IRR
Fredonia Mining Inc.'s El Dorado–Monserrat (EDM) in Santa Cruz Province, Argentina has a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) outlining an after-tax NPV of $1.50B, an after-tax IRR of 65%, and initial capital of $346M. The mine plan runs 17 years at about 146 koz AuEq/a per year.
Fredonia Mining Inc.'s El Dorado–Monserrat (EDM) has reported Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) results for the gold project in Santa Cruz Province, Argentina. The study headlines an after-tax net present value of $1.50B at a 10% discount rate. It reflects Fredonia Mining Inc.'s (FRED.V) latest disclosed economics for the asset.
Economics. The after-tax NPV is $1.50B using a 10% discount rate. After-tax IRR is 65%. Initial capital expenditure is estimated at $346M. All-in sustaining costs are pegged at 1720 USD/oz Au. Economics are based on PEA base case: US$3,800/oz Au and US$45/oz Ag for mine planning. Mineral Resource AuEq reporting used US$4,000/oz Au and US$70/oz Ag..
Production and mine plan. The project envisions an open-pit operation. Life of mine is 17 years. Average annual production is approximately 146 koz AuEq/a. Average head grade is Crush plant feed 0.6 g/t Au + 14 g/t Ag (0.725 g/t AuEq); uncrushed pad 0.14 g/t Au + 6 g/t Ag (0.214 g/t AuEq). Metallurgical recovery averages 85%. The open-pit strip ratio is 1.7.
Resources and ownership. Royalties and streams: 1.5% net smelter return royalty on the EDM; 0.5% net profits interest on Winki II, El Aguila I, El Aguila II and Petrificados.
These figures are extracted from Fredonia Mining Inc.'s technical disclosures and reflect the most recent PEA on file. Compare this project against other developers and producers in our project economics database, and always verify the numbers against the original technical report before making any investment decision.
Reserves & Resources
| Category | Tonnage | Grade | Contained |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measured | 18.484 Mt | 0.31 g/t Au, 7.85 g/t Ag, 0.44 g/t AuEq | — |
| Indicated | 15.093 Mt | 0.30 g/t Au, 8.08 g/t Ag, 0.43 g/t AuEq | — |
| Measured & Indicated | 33.577 Mt | 0.31 g/t Au, 7.95 g/t Ag, 0.44 g/t AuEq | 331.0 koz Au, 8.582 Moz Ag, 471.2 koz AuEq |
| Inferred | 6.975 Mt | 0.21 g/t Au, 4.81 g/t Ag, 0.29 g/t AuEq | 47.1 koz Au, 1.079 Moz Ag, 64.9 koz AuEq |
| Measured | 44.748 Mt | 0.60 g/t Au, 15.37 g/t Ag, 0.85 g/t AuEq | — |
| Indicated | 43.827 Mt | 0.49 g/t Au, 13.51 g/t Ag, 0.71 g/t AuEq | — |
| Measured & Indicated | 88.576 Mt | 0.55 g/t Au, 14.45 g/t Ag, 0.78 g/t AuEq | 1,577.7 koz Au, 41.163 Moz Ag, 2,231.4 koz AuEq |
| Inferred | 64.052 Mt | 0.33 g/t Au, 9.13 g/t Ag, 0.48 g/t AuEq | 679.6 koz Au, 18.802 Moz Ag, 989.2 koz AuEq |
| Measured | 3.059 Mt | 0.18 g/t Au, 12.67 g/t Ag, 0.39 g/t AuEq | — |
| Indicated | 1.241 Mt | 0.14 g/t Au, 11.75 g/t Ag, 0.33 g/t AuEq | — |
| Measured & Indicated | 4.301 Mt | 0.17 g/t Au, 12.40 g/t Ag, 0.37 g/t AuEq | 24.0 koz Au, 1.715 Moz Ag, 51.7 koz AuEq |
| Inferred | 2.865 Mt | 0.14 g/t Au, 15.90 g/t Ag, 0.40 g/t AuEq | 12.9 koz Au, 1.464 Moz Ag, 37.0 koz AuEq |
| Measured | 66.292 Mt | 0.50 g/t Au, 13.15 g/t Ag, 0.72 g/t AuEq | — |
| Indicated | 60.162 Mt | 0.44 g/t Au, 12.11 g/t Ag, 0.64 g/t AuEq | — |
| Measured & Indicated | 126.454 Mt | 0.47 g/t Au, 12.66 g/t Ag, 0.68 g/t AuEq | 1,932.7 koz Au, 51.460 Moz Ag, 2,758.6 koz AuEq |
| Inferred | 73.891 Mt | 0.31 g/t Au, 8.98 g/t Ag, 0.46 g/t AuEq | 739.6 koz Au, 21.345 Moz Ag, 1,087.8 koz AuEq |
Our Analysis
- IRR after-tax
- 65%
higher than 83% of 113 projects we track
- NPV after-tax
- $1.50B
higher than 81% of 150 projects we track
- Initial capex
- $346M
23% of NPV
costlier than 65% of 147 projects we track
- Mine life
- 17yrs
- Discount rate
- 10%
- Study price assumption
- PEA base case: US$3,800/oz Au and US$45/oz Ag for mine planning. Mineral Resource AuEq reporting used US$4,000/oz Au and US$70/oz Ag.
- Spot gold today
- $4,360.00/oz
A US$35M company is proposing to build a US$346M mine. That ratio, roughly ten to one, is the fact that governs everything else in this profile. No nano-cap writes a cheque of that size from its own balance sheet, and the equity component of any conventional funding package would be transformative for existing holders: this is a project that gets built by someone else, on someone else's terms, or not at all. The realistic paths are a partner or acquirer carrying the construction bill, a streaming or offtake arrangement that trades margin for capital, or a joint-venture sell-down. Each of those leaves current shareholders with a smaller piece of a larger asset, and the question is whether the slice that survives is worth more than the whole is today.
The economics themselves are not the constraint. A 65% after-tax IRR sits above 83% of the 113 gold projects we track, and the US$1.50B after-tax NPV ranks above 81% of the 150 we follow. Capex at 23% of NPV is genuinely light relative to the 147-project cohort, where the figure runs higher. Against the practical hurdle for a junior with no other asset to lean on, which is 20%-plus rather than the 15% a diversified developer might accept, there is real headroom. The study's 10% discount rate is a reporting convention and not a signal either way.
What tempers all of it is the stage. This is a scoping-level PEA, and its capital estimate carries a plus or minus 50% band; inferred material may sit inside the mine plan. Santa Cruz is a working mining province, which helps, and the US$3,800/oz planning price sits below today's US$4,360/oz spot, so the base case is not stretched on price. The decisive question is not the IRR. It is who funds US$346M, and what they take for it.
Our take, benchmarked against the project economics in the Mining Stocks database. Figures are estimates drawn from company technical reports — not investment advice; always verify against the source filing.
Get the next one first
Be the first to know about new mining results, and how they compare to other projects.